WorkflowsLegal

Predict Legal Responses

Know exactly how opposing counsel, regulators, and judges will respond. Validate legal strategies before critical decisions.

Mind Reasoner

Stop Making Legal Decisions Blind

The shift: Create minds for opposing counsel, regulators, and judges. Test any legal strategy. Know how they’ll respond before making million-dollar decisions.

Result: Win more cases, navigate regulatory processes faster, avoid costly legal mistakes.

What You Can Predict

Settlement Negotiations

Know before offering:

  • Will they accept this settlement amount?
  • What’s their acceptable range?
  • Which terms matter most to them?
  • What payment structures will they accept?

Test settlement offers before proposing.

Legal Arguments

Validate strategy:

  • Which legal arguments will resonate?
  • What evidence concerns them most?
  • How will they counter our position?
  • Which precedents matter to them?

Build compelling legal strategies.

Regulatory Responses

Navigate compliance:

  • Will regulators approve this approach?
  • What documentation will they require?
  • Which concerns will they raise?
  • What modifications satisfy them?

Navigate regulatory processes efficiently.

Judge Perspectives

Understand the bench:

  • Which legal arguments will persuade?
  • What evidence will carry weight?
  • How do they interpret this statute?
  • What procedural concerns will they have?

Present cases effectively.

How to Predict

Get predictions. Adjust legal strategy. Enter proceedings prepared.

You will know:

  • What they’ll accept
  • What persuades them
  • What closes them

Quick Start

Ask legal minds:

  • Will you accept this settlement?
  • How will you respond to this legal argument?
  • What concerns will you raise?

Get answers. Refine strategy.

After hearings, settlements, submissions:

  • Did they respond as predicted?
  • What surprised you?
  • Update minds with new information

Result: Predictions get better over time

Implementation

Use Mind Reasoner through Claude Code

No coding. Just natural conversation in Claude.

Litigation Example:

You:

$> "Create a mind for David Chen, opposing counsel at Latham & Watkins,
>using our case communications: /Documents/legal/latham-case.vtt"

Mind Reasoner:

Training opposing counsel mind... (~10 min)

You:

$> "We have strong evidence of contract breach: signed agreement,
>delivery failure, $3M in documented damages. How strong is our case
>in your view? Will you recommend settlement? What range?"

Mind Reasoner:

Based on David's litigation approach:
Case Strength Assessment:
David's view of your case: MODERATE STRENGTH
Why he sees weaknesses:
- Force majeure clause may apply to delivery failure
- Damages calculation methodology is disputed
- Your client has unclean hands (late payments)
- Discovery may reveal mitigation failures
Settlement recommendation:
Will David recommend settlement? YES
Reasoning:
- Trial risk is 50/50 for both sides
- Client wants certainty (public company, earnings impact)
- Your evidence is strong enough to survive summary judgment
- Litigation costs will exceed $2M for both sides
Settlement range analysis:
Client's authority: Up to $1.8M
David's recommendation: $1.2-1.5M range
Opening offer: Will start at $800K
What he needs to settle at $1.5M:
- Confidentiality agreement (mandatory)
- Mutual release (standard)
- No admission of liability (required by insurance)
- Payment within 60 days (client needs cash certainty)
If you demand $3M:
- David will proceed to trial
- He believes jury verdict will be $1M or less
If you offer to settle at $1.8M:
- 80% chance he accepts
- May counter at $1.6M
- Can close at $1.6-1.8M range
Optimal strategy:
- Demand $2.2M (room to negotiate)
- Signal willingness to settle at $1.8M
- Include confidentiality and mutual release
- Close at $1.6-1.8M range (saves both sides trial costs)

Regulatory Example:

You:

$> "Create regulator mind using FDA meeting transcripts:
>/Documents/regulatory/fda-meetings.vtt"

Mind Reasoner:

Training regulatory mind... (~10 min)

You:

$> "We're proposing a modified clinical trial protocol: reduce
>sample size from 500 to 300 patients, extend follow-up from
>12 to 18 months. Will you approve this modification?
>What concerns will you have?"

Mind Reasoner:

Based on FDA reviewer's patterns:
Protocol Modification Assessment:
Will FDA approve? CONDITIONAL YES
Primary concerns:
Concern 1: Statistical Power
- 300 patients may not provide adequate power
- Needs statistical justification for reduced sample
- What's the power calculation at n=300?
- Must maintain 90% power for primary endpoint
Concern 2: Endpoint Timing
- Why extend follow-up to 18 months?
- Does this align with natural disease progression?
- Are you seeing late adverse events?
- Will this delay NDA submission timeline?
Concern 3: Interim Analysis
- With smaller sample, interim looks are riskier
- Will you adjust alpha spending?
- Data monitoring committee independence?
What FDA needs to approve:
Required documentation:
1. Updated statistical analysis plan with power calculations
2. Justification for 18-month follow-up (safety or efficacy?)
3. Independent DMC charter and roster
4. Revised protocol with tracked changes
5. Impact assessment on NDA timeline
Approval likelihood:
If you provide robust statistical justification:
- 70% chance of approval with minor conditions
- May require interim safety review at n=150
If justification is weak:
- Will reject and require full 500 patient sample
- Or approve 400 patients as compromise
Optimal approach:
- Submit detailed power analysis showing 90%+ power at n=300
- Justify 18-month follow-up with clinical rationale
- Propose interim safety review at n=150
- Demonstrate independent DMC oversight
- Show this doesn't delay NDA by more than 3 months
Timeline: Expect 45-60 day review, possible meeting request

MCP Tools Reference →

Next Steps

Navigate Legal Decisions

Navigate M&A deals and complex negotiations

MCP Quick Start

Set up in 5 minutes

API Quick Start

Build into your workflow

Questions? Email support@mindreasoner.com